User talk:ThePromenader/removed messages

This page is an archive of (most - all that I could find) messages concerning Hardouin's incivil/disruptive behaviour left on his talk page, messages that the same efffaced completely. This will remain as reference for an upcoming RfC - as soon as it is no longer needed, it will go.

Totally disputed tag

The totally disputed tag is both excessive ("totally disputed") and inapropriate, because you are the only user disputing some (not all) elements of the article. If any user who disputed any element of any article on Wikipedia was to use the tag, I bet almost all articles on Wikipedia would have a totally disputed tag. The tag is used for big issues which involve many users, check for instance Anti-German (ideology). Hardouin 11:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Totally disputed" = "the entire article, POV and facts." Stop grasping at straws please. And keep discussion on the Paris article public, that is to say on the Paris article Talk page; I have nothing to hide in all this. In the meantime, until you have proven or fixed the disputed content, you will leave the "disputed" tag where it is, as your refusal to engage in pre-emptive discussion, constant reverting, refusal to see reason or provide sources has indeed turned this into a dispute. Thank you.

THEPROMENADER 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered many times on the talk page the points you dispute on the talk page. Re-read my previous answers. Even user Stevage said there was nothing wrong about talking of "Greater Paris". The tag is based on your, and yours only, disagreement with the article. That doesn't justify a totally disputed tag, otherwise everybody would be free to add totally disputed tags on any article they want. Hardouin 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have answered to nothing and changed nothing. Your writ is of your own invention and comes from no citable reference; if this is false, you have yet to prove it. You use the term "Greater Paris" but once, and when you do you misuse it. Stevage also admitted he knew little on the subject - this is not the case with me. Stop grasping at straws. You will answer to your misconceptions, allow improvement or you prolong the dispute. Period. I will continue to replace the tag as long as you remove it without fulfilling the above conditions, so don't bother. You're only making yourself look more foolish and accomplishing nothing. THEPROMENADER 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your threatening message on my talk page

The Original Message:

Especially in the light of your misbehaviour these past days, it is very rude to all concerned to reply to a problem not even addressed to you and ignore others that concern you directly.

I'll have you know that I am formulating a direct complaint against your months of page appropriation and predjudiced reverts. This will take some time to formulate as, although you pretend to have a short memory, there are months and months of nonsense to compile. I only regret that I must waste so much time on this - in order to allow an unbridled editing of - one article. Cordially, THEPROMENADER 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Promenader, I am sick and tired of your accusations and diatribe. Drop it. If you were accessible to reason, it should ring a bell somehow that nobody is answering your lenghty messages on Paris talk page, and not even Green Giant feels concerned about all the nasty things you write to him about me. Unfortunately you are totally unreasonable. The insane messages you sent to Metropolitan definitely convinced me that you are the craziest person I have met in my life so far. So go ahead, file your "complaint", I'll make sure to tell everybody the kind of person you are. Hardouin 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if I can add: I think the general Paris page consensus concerning ThePromenader is "Shut up and edit already." Yet it seems that a unique contributor there does not want this to happen. In other words, those long loads of prose stem from you, my dear. Without your antics there would probably be none of this. Go figure. THEPROMENADER 08:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You go to great lengths to insinuate whatever you can about me, and you obviously watch everything I do. Which unfortunately, time permitting lately, is only dealing with you. Yes, please do tell all to all - and allow me to do the same. THEPROMENADER 19:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would really like to know in what way my message - or any of my messages to you, for that matter - was 'threatening'. THEPROMENADER 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May it be noted Hardouin, that your talk page is rather full of contests of your above statement. It may also be noted that rather blindly appropriating articles under the claim that motorways exist here and there that maybe editing the said sections with content you say is present in the disputed locations' articles. Captain scarlet 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, I wouldn't begin a revert war on someone's talk page, Captain scarlet : ) THEPROMENADER 19:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed 'Paris points'

Original Message

Actually, what is going on here is not 'tricks': it is called 'building consensus'. The consensus of two that I was speaking of was only on the point of the infobox thinning in the present discussion alone - I could count the attempts by myself, Green Giant and Stevage to thin things down, all of these reverted by you, but we are all quite aware of these so I but give them mention in our discussion. I did not count Captain Scarlet vote in anything thus far - but even before this, consensus was already more than two across several points quite clearly outlined in the discussion.

I'm not angry at your leaving rather misleading attempts at denigration of myself on other people's talk pages, but I don't really see the point in it. I think it would be better for the sake of the overall editing atmosphere here that you stick to parlaying facts, and that you show some respect for other contributor's wish to do so.

I honestly do admire the seeming wealth/resources of your knowledge, and think that you really can/do contribute a lot to Wiki, but for readers and contributors alike to fully appreciate your talents, you must work towards the common goal that is making real and referenced information available and accessible (in all senses of the term) to the greatest possible public. It is the basic facts we must relate first, and then and only then can we continue onwards towards other 'points of view' - but even these must be referenceable. It is only natural that with time and more knowledgable contributors that the article fall into this line - it would be great if, instead of resisting all movement in this direction, that you put your talents to use and help us attain this goal.

THEPROMENADER 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nota - the above message was immidiately erased from where it was left, so I moved it here. Below is the reply left here.

Your umpteenth message on my talk page

Listen Promenader, stop posting self-righteous messages on my talk page, you're only wasting my time. Your opinion is full well known, you're the good guy and I'm the bad guy, you only look for truth, I am the one deceiving people, bla bla bla, you've trumpeted that for months now, so there's no need to continue arguing over it. The only reason why I am answering you is this: I discovered you sent messages to several people about the Paris infobox of your making, except to Metropolitan and to me, despite the fat that Metropolitan and I are two significant contributors to the Paris article! That sort of sneaky behavior says a lot about your personality... So much for Mr. Self-Righteous! Hardouin 23:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your aggressive attitude. The only person I could be certain of hearing from about the Paris article is you. Call Metroplolitan an 'oubli'. As for the rest and the tone of all this, I find it to be quite overheated, provocating and quite immature - if you are indeed a partisan of reason, I suggest you find another approach. THEPROMENADER 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)== Your latest message ==[reply]

Paranoia again? You're the one publicly disclosing your life, your profession, you whereabouts to everybody. And now you say you want everything to remain private? Again you're not being very logical. If you don't want people to know anything about you, then don't say anything in the first place. But then, we both know that your baseless accusation is just motivated by anger after I revealed your stalking of Metropolitan. Hardouin 11:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I divulge what personal info I want to who I please, and you won't see my address on my personal page or in any article. To find this sort of information one has to a) know me b) take an active interest in my doings and c) read every post to every article and every user page I make. And you're calling me a stalker?

Also, let me remind you that it is your sock-puppetry that created circumstances propitious to doubt about an eventual repetition of the same behaviour. Even in light of this I offered an apology to Metropolitan - what have you done of the sort? THEPROMENADER 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a- I have never created sock-puppets, and you have never offered an apology to me.

b- You talked about your location on Gnetwerker's talk page, and I was reading this talk page because I was exchanging messages with this user. Now stop your baseless accusations. Hardouin 13:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make your case worse for yourself - let me remind you that I am not alone as witness to your behaviour. My 'accusations', first off, are constatations, and second, I would not forward them without good reason. Now, if you please, I have work to do. Good day. THEPROMENADER 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim things without proof. And when your accusations don't turn out the way you wanted, you say you have better things to do and you quit. Please, be a bit more mature. Good day to you too. Hardouin 13:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite silly that 'puppet' day, and the proof I posted with every turn of events - you are also quite silly to forward a denial, especially after all was practically forgotten and forgiven. Absolutely nothing has 'turned out' at all today - just more reams of text to no discernable goal nor conclusion.

I suggest that you hold with your personal affrontery. I do have a weakness in my overwhelming urge to clarify false allusions and accusations, so it would be best for both our time's sake that you bring an end to these. THEPROMENADER 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that referring to people's disagreement with you as "personal affrontery" helps bolster your case. Hardouin 14:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement on what? You talk little of fact, mostly vague insinuations dictatively alluding to things I 'do' and what I 'impose' and what I 'try' and what my 'vision' is - without ever speaking clearly of anything at all! I even have to try to discern what point you trying to make before answering you - and still manage to bring out the basic question in it all - that you somehow always avoid answering. So enough of this roundabout merry-go-round - unless you want to answer clearly what's asked of you, vague exchanges such as these are a big waste of everyone's reading time. THEPROMENADER 17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Talk-Page Messages

- yet another message removed by User:Hardouin

There is absolutely no call for the removal of talk-page messages, especially when they are warnings. Insinuate with any adjective you like, but unless they are a personal attack their removal is unwarrented. Please find the original message again below, as it will be needed soon - I have begun a complaint proceedings against you and a documented warning on your user page is needed for that. This is it:

No more games. You have held reign with your opinons over pages of your choice thanks to the ignorance of other contributors, and enforced your unsolicited impositions in ignorance of all discussion and consensus (infoboxes being only the latest example) with unwarrented reverts - enough. Wiki is not your personal soapbox for imposing your personal opinions upon the unsuspecting, and this without any clear justification or direct citation whatsoever, as the patent truth. In my work upon the other French city pages I see that Paris is only the beginning of the unreferencable mess you've made - this must end. From now I will do everything within my power to bring an end your strictly personal, antisocial and anti-wiki nonsense. THEPROMENADER 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your third reminder. You have already shown enough unreasonable behavior for one night. THEPROMENADER 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messages formerly on the talk page of User:Hardouin

Revert to Municipal errors, revisited

---

Note to Hardouin - it is considered very rude to efface contributor messages from your talk page, especially when the messages effaced a) were left only hours before and b) address issues that you yourself have raised against that contributor. If you find anything in a message worthy of complaint, then lodge a formal complaint (example at WP:PAIN for personal attacks, or at WP:VANDAL for vandalism), but do not efface it without a trace - especially under cover of an 'archiving.'

-- THEPROMENADER 12:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The error of your revert to your 'own' errors is outlined in the concerned page.

This has been reported to several admins anyway, who will no doubt keep an eye on this. - I see no evidence of this. You would be quite kind to keep your complaints above board where they can be verified and refuted. THEPROMENADER 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nota: the Paris page will have to be corrected sooner or later, unless you can find evidence that the nationwide commune system was a result of the Provost's shooting. The rest of your reverts were motivated by nothing but sheer pigheadedness and not at all in reader interest - and your 'disproving' statement was pure fabrication: there was no mention of 'medieval state' or even 'state' in anything you reverted, and what you reverted described qute completely the reasons for Paris' nearly-constant lack of political independance. Such behaviour is not what one can call good faith. THEPROMENADER 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one reverting, so you yourself should provide the evidence before you revert. Telling me "where to read" is not this. Again you are imposing an event that, only a sliver of importance in the creation of Paris' (France's) municipal commune system, would appear to be the entire cause. This does not take an entire talk page to "explain". Even the commune in France article (written largely by yourself - and quite a quite good piece of work I must add) shows that the commune was a next step to the office of provost's abolishment, not the shooting of the Provost himself.

Watch me for what? Those must have been some pretty interesting mails, and sent not to just anyone I'm sure. I'll count on the judgement of all concerned to look at facts and page histories for reality. The originality in much of what you write, and your vehemence in ensuring that it stay exactly as you wrote it, speaks of more personal ends and promoting personal theories than sharing information - this is quite obvious to anyone knowing anything about the subjects in which we contribute. Unfortunately there are few 'in the know', which is why, for lack of consensus, you are able to make life so difficult for other contributors trying to make an article resemble more reference than a single wikipedian's opinion. This is not a gang war, there is no 'sides', and there is no 'property' - it is the integrity of the written word that has the final say, and that's it. Work to this end and you'll have no reason for conflict with anyone. THEPROMENADER 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off-board Complaints

---

I would appreciate if Promenader wouldn't delete each and every of my contributions. This has been reported to several admins anyway, who will no doubt keep an eye on this.

...Wait a second. By the above, are you insinuating that you complained to editors that it is I who follows you about reverting your edits? Nothing could be farther than the truth; in fact, just the opposite is true! The typical Hardouin scenario, at least in my time on wiki:

• A contributor has the malchance to edit/correct an article that Hardouin has written/extensively edited.
• In no time at all, Hardouin is there to inspect the additions/alterations, and reverts or overwrites them if they are not to his taste, and this, in many cases, without leaving any talk page message at all.
• Should the reverted contributor be angry and see the revert as needless, and revert back, Hardouin will engage in a revert-war until he gets the 'last revert', and this well beyond the WP:3RR is broken - and since he is always the first to revert, he is always first to cross the line.
• Should through all the above, the reverted contributor leave talk page messages pointing out the needlessness of the reverts and/or proving the original text as being false, Hardouin will begin replying with only arguments supporting his "own" reverted-to version and completely ignoring arguments motivating change.
• Should the revert-war end with Hardouin having the last revert, he will end all talk-page discussion until someone once again tries to edit the article, and the above scenario will repeat itself.

Anyone can verify this, especially in the Paris article page history.

... the 'municipal dance' was a break from this in its onset, but it later followed the same cycle. Your first edits, made under the label "corrected some longstanding errors" (it was obvious with through earlier mentions in other discussion that you were obsessed with this section) was not at all to correct any errors but add quite inventive text of your own - a text not reverted, but refuted in the Paris talk page. It was only after weeks of your ignoring all suggestions and arguments that I made corrections and language improvements - but your original contribution remained largely intact. You cancelled many of these but two hours after by the re-insertion of your own former text (marked as a "minor edit" in the bargain) - with the addition of yet another misleading phrase - and after even more talkpage banter/ignoring, the circle began once again.

This is of course without mention of other tactics such as false and denigrating complaints to other contributors, 'turnaround' accusations, gaming the system (such as in the latest WP:3RR debacle) and last but not least, sock-puppetry.

All of the above behaviour speaks of something other than than article informative value/accuracy, but whatever it is, this is of no concern to me. Making misleading complaints to administrators, on the other hand, is something else entirely. I invite anyone concerned to take this up with me directly.

Hardouin, you've managed to make contributing to Wiki a quite unpleasant experience: if you really have an accusation to make, I suggest you open a WP:RFC against me so we can see through fact where your complaint lies. If all you have is insinuations, I suggest that you not waste any more of anyone's time.

Regards, THEPROMENADER 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message removals

---

You are once again gaming the system for all it's worth - your accusations of stalking you are grave, and by making them behind the scenes (and continuing to do so) you leave no possiblility to check a) the content of your accusations and b) construct a defense if the need be. If you were behaving in good faith you would simply open an WP:RFM against me.

In light of your unfounded accusations and unmerited warnings, of course my tone is hostile. Yet the content of the messages was a total refute of your accusations (to others) that I am stalking you and reverting everything you do - when exactly the opposite is true. Those messages also contained links to the evidence of both the validity of my claims and the mistruth in yours. It is simply too convenient to just remove them as a form of 'vandalism' - in making even more threats.

I will display, as usual, the comments you removed from your talk page on mine. THEPROMENADER 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed messages

---

If you are going to remove messages from your talk page without even archiving them, and those messages are mine, then you must leave a link to where to find them for all parties concerned. That would be here. You have absolutely no call for removing messages in this way, especially the last ones.

Lastly, the comment "I said I took note of it. Enough now. Talk pages are for questions, suggestions, and sharing information. They are not for finger pointing." attached to the last effacement is a bit odd coming from a person who used a talk page to make unfounded public accusations in the first place. Leave this where it is, or find it on my talk page as well. THEPROMENADER 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selective but Complete Talk-Page removals

---

Hello again, Hardouin. While mulling an eventual WP:RFC against you, it was brought to my attention that not only did you remove several of my messages from your talk page/Archives yesterday, you have in fact eliminated every message I have ever left you, polite or angry. This represents a period of almost one year. Since now it is certain that I am opening an WP:RFC against you, these messages will be needed as evidence that myself and others have tried to negociate with you/call you to order. This is more an inconvenience than a problem, as the WP:RFC stipulates that diff 's, although slightly more cumbersome to manipulate, are even preferred over direct links.

Consider this message a formal notification of my intentions. Blanking even this will only be an underline to your long history of incivility. THEPROMENADER 10:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppetry

Give me a f*cking break. A sock puppet who leaves a comment - but doesn't vote? Get real. THEPROMENADER 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hardly a sockpuppet! And I voted to delete it! It seemed to me that perhaps this TfD was being done without the knowledge of some of the France editors which I didn't think was fair. I took the time to leave a message on the TfD and here expressing my concerns. I think that if you would have taken the time to do some "homework" you would have realized that! MJCdetroit 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Prom at first I thought that was directed toward me! It's a good thing I wasn't too harsh. Just to be clear, who is the socketpuppet or where did this come from? Je désolé (in my sub-par French). MJCdetroit 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin accused me of being a sockpuppet in a page-move vote. I left my IP to clear that up, so Hardouin's probably off trying to do evil things to it (jk) : ) THEPROMENADER 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attack" attack

What is the point of bringing personal discussions into an article talk page? Your intent in this is obvious - and lame. Not only have you proved that you are stalking me, but you have doubly damned yourself by exposing Captain scarlet's talk page to everyone there - all your antics and the RfC case are there for all to see. I'd say "quit while you're ahead" but It may be too late. I'm sorry but, because of your latest attempt at manipulation, I can no longer play the 'leniency' card - I must make this as straightforward and simple as possible for everyone concerned, as we both have wasted enough of other people's time. For a superior man, you sure show a lot of worry.

Regards. THEPROMENADER 07:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nanosecond of Wisdom

(removed under baseless edit commentary: "Removed insults ("sh*te")" )

That knowledge deserves respect is undeniable, but the entire knowledge of someone even knowledgeable can be disregarded entirely if even some of what he publishes is inventive sh*te. If a reader reads something that he later finds to be false, he will tend to doubt the veracity of the entire book he read; that book, in this case, is Wiki. Short of verifying the entire work, how is one to tell fact from fiction? In other words: original falsehoods shed doubt on every Wiki contribution and contributor, and in some respects makes the whole effort seem quite pointless. I think this is something worth thinking about. THEPROMENADER 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Article modifications

(removed under edit commentary: "Removing threats by ThePromenader" )

It's nice that you've finally found the motivation to begin making changes to articles of your making that have not moved an inch since months, but I must remind you that it is not the article's present state I will be referencing in the WP:RFC case, but its diff and logged date of stagnation. Thanks all the same. THEPROMENADER 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]